NBA Teams Looking Into New Ways To Prevent Teams From Tanking

[jambr380]

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/47398198/sources-nba-looking-new-ways-prevent-teams-tanking

We used to talk about this topic here on CS quite a bit, but it seems like the league might be coming up with some pretty radical ideas to prevent tanking in the future. Some of the ideas:

? Limiting pick protections to either top four or 14 and higher, which would eliminate the problematic mid-lottery protections.

? No longer allowing a team to draft in the top four two years in a row.

? Locking lottery positions after March 1.

What do you think about these possibilities? The last one is something I've never even thought of before, but I guess it's at least outside the box in an interesting way. No reason to rest players in the last month of the season if your lottery odds are already locked in.

I guess this could just cause teams to tank much earlier, but you might have more competitive games down the stretch of the season. Teams fighting for the playoffs wouldn't necessarily have auto-wins anymore.

[slamtheking]

I've always been a proponent of preventing teams from having multiple consecutive bites of the proverbial apple.

The proposal I passed around here years ago was a team winning the top pick one year would be excluded from any lottery drawings for at 2 years afterwards and any team winning a top 3 pick (which was the number of picks up for grabs at the time -- so essentially, those that won picks 2 and 3) would be excluded from the lottery the next year.  The best any of those teams could do the following year if they missed the playoffs was the #4 pick even if they had the worst record in the league. 

[Moranis]

Drafts are not equal so I'm not a fan of any proposal which eliminates a team from winning multiple years.  And you often need multiple high level picks to truly complete.  Now I can see the merit of eliminating some protection tiers, but otherwise this is mostly just the haves trying to keep the have nots from becoming the haves. 

Also, 10 years ago or so I actually analyzed the top pick in the lottery era to illustrate the shear difference in draft quality. I looked at the #1 pick only and broke then down by near consensus #1 to more open and then rated the picks on how good they were. It might be worth doing again, but a good illustration is the 2000 draft.  Kenyon Martin was a near consensus #1 pick that year. He also ended up being the best player in that draft.  So a homerun for the Nets i e  their choice was basically made and it hit, yet Kenyon Martin wasn't a franchise player and was never going to be the best player on a title team.  Now imagine the Nets are restricted from high picks for several years because they got Martin.  Or worse, you get the 1st pick in 2001 where there isn't  a consensus #1 and Kwame Brown is the 1st pick and the best player is a guy from Spain that went 3rd (Pau) and the 2nd best player is a Frenchman that went 28th (Parker).  Not all drafts are 2003 with Lebron or even 2004 with Dwight i.e. where there is a consensus #1 that ends up as the best player in the draft and is a franchise player.  Or like 2003 after LeBron with Anthony, Bosh, and Wade all being top 5 picks (and all better than Kenyon Martin). 

Because of the shear difference in draft quality I don't think they should restrict teams from drafting high in multiple drafts.  Just too much variance and that will put an even greater focus on tanking in the presumed right seasons i.e. a draft like 2003.

[Who]

End the draft.

Let the players enter via free agency. End rookie scale contracts. Let the rookies get big offers.

No upside to tanking without the draft.

[BitterJim]

Drafts are not equal so I'm not a fan of any proposal which eliminates a team from winning multiple years.  And you often need multiple high level picks to truly complete.  Now I can see the merit of eliminating some protection tiers, but otherwise this is mostly just the haves trying to keep the have nots from becoming the haves. 

Also, 10 years ago or so I actually analyzed the top pick in the lottery era to illustrate the shear difference in draft quality. I looked at the #1 pick only and broke then down by near consensus #1 to more open and then rated the picks on how good they were. It might be worth doing again, but a good illustration is the 2000 draft.  Kenyon Martin was a near consensus #1 pick that year. He also ended up being the best player in that draft.  So a homerun for the Nets i e  their choice was basically made and it hit, yet Kenyon Martin wasn't a franchise player and was never going to be the best player on a title team.  Now imagine the Nets are restricted from high picks for several years because they got Martin.  Or worse, you get the 1st pick in 2001 where there isn't  a consensus #1 and Kwame Brown is the 1st pick and the best player is a guy from Spain that went 3rd (Pau) and the 2nd best player is a Frenchman that went 28th (Parker).  Not all drafts are 2003 with Lebron or even 2004 with Dwight i.e. where there is a consensus #1 that ends up as the best player in the draft and is a franchise player.  Or like 2003 after LeBron with Anthony, Bosh, and Wade all being top 5 picks (and all better than Kenyon Martin). 

Because of the shear difference in draft quality I don't think they should restrict teams from drafting high in multiple drafts.  Just too much variance and that will put an even greater focus on tanking in the presumed right seasons i.e. a draft like 2003.

It would be interesting to introduce the consecutive lottery limits while adding the option for teams that won the lottery to refuse their spot (i.e. if you win the lottery in a weak draft, you have the option to keep your previous spot, but remain eligible for next year's lottery). That would prevent some instances of a bad team losing out on a strong draft just because they won in a weak draft, but also would really encourage that team to tank the next year to make it worth it.

Ultimately, the answer is probably going back to the previous lottery odds, plus limits on protections (and maybe make some limits around how you finished the year before, like teams that made the playoffs in 2025 couldn't put top 5 protections on their 2026/2027 picks, but could do lottery protection, and could do top 5 protection on later picks). Or the wheel, but that has always felt a bit like a solution in search of a problem.

[slamtheking]

Drafts are not equal so I'm not a fan of any proposal which eliminates a team from winning multiple years.  And you often need multiple high level picks to truly complete.  Now I can see the merit of eliminating some protection tiers, but otherwise this is mostly just the haves trying to keep the have nots from becoming the haves. 

Also, 10 years ago or so I actually analyzed the top pick in the lottery era to illustrate the shear difference in draft quality. I looked at the #1 pick only and broke then down by near consensus #1 to more open and then rated the picks on how good they were. It might be worth doing again, but a good illustration is the 2000 draft.  Kenyon Martin was a near consensus #1 pick that year. He also ended up being the best player in that draft.  So a homerun for the Nets i e  their choice was basically made and it hit, yet Kenyon Martin wasn't a franchise player and was never going to be the best player on a title team.  Now imagine the Nets are restricted from high picks for several years because they got Martin.  Or worse, you get the 1st pick in 2001 where there isn't  a consensus #1 and Kwame Brown is the 1st pick and the best player is a guy from Spain that went 3rd (Pau) and the 2nd best player is a Frenchman that went 28th (Parker).  Not all drafts are 2003 with Lebron or even 2004 with Dwight i.e. where there is a consensus #1 that ends up as the best player in the draft and is a franchise player.  Or like 2003 after LeBron with Anthony, Bosh, and Wade all being top 5 picks (and all better than Kenyon Martin). 

Because of the shear difference in draft quality I don't think they should restrict teams from drafting high in multiple drafts.  Just too much variance and that will put an even greater focus on tanking in the presumed right seasons i.e. a draft like 2003.

It would be interesting to introduce the consecutive lottery limits while adding the option for teams that won the lottery to refuse their spot (i.e. if you win the lottery in a weak draft, you have the option to keep your previous spot, but remain eligible for next year's lottery). That would prevent some instances of a bad team losing out on a strong draft just because they won in a weak draft, but also would really encourage that team to tank the next year to make it worth it.

Ultimately, the answer is probably going back to the previous lottery odds, plus limits on protections (and maybe make some limits around how you finished the year before, like teams that made the playoffs in 2025 couldn't put top 5 protections on their 2026/2027 picks, but could do lottery protection, and could do top 5 protection on later picks). Or the wheel, but that has always felt a bit like a solution in search of a problem.

the weakness or strength of a particular draft class shouldn't matter.  Team that gets the top pick is still in a better position than every other team and there's no telling how that player will turn out. 

one way to address the protections teams put on their picks is to eliminate that as an option for all teams so that picks convey regardless (which will likely put a kibosh on those second rounders protected 1-55 that are included in a number of deals just to send something out in a trade) or make it so that if protections are retained, they cannot continue protected for a number of years to where they hit a point where they don't convey or convert to second rounders.  If a team protects a pick 1-14 for a future year, they cannot put further protections on it for following years.

[Moranis]

Drafts are not equal so I'm not a fan of any proposal which eliminates a team from winning multiple years.  And you often need multiple high level picks to truly complete.  Now I can see the merit of eliminating some protection tiers, but otherwise this is mostly just the haves trying to keep the have nots from becoming the haves. 

Also, 10 years ago or so I actually analyzed the top pick in the lottery era to illustrate the shear difference in draft quality. I looked at the #1 pick only and broke then down by near consensus #1 to more open and then rated the picks on how good they were. It might be worth doing again, but a good illustration is the 2000 draft.  Kenyon Martin was a near consensus #1 pick that year. He also ended up being the best player in that draft.  So a homerun for the Nets i e  their choice was basically made and it hit, yet Kenyon Martin wasn't a franchise player and was never going to be the best player on a title team.  Now imagine the Nets are restricted from high picks for several years because they got Martin.  Or worse, you get the 1st pick in 2001 where there isn't  a consensus #1 and Kwame Brown is the 1st pick and the best player is a guy from Spain that went 3rd (Pau) and the 2nd best player is a Frenchman that went 28th (Parker).  Not all drafts are 2003 with Lebron or even 2004 with Dwight i.e. where there is a consensus #1 that ends up as the best player in the draft and is a franchise player.  Or like 2003 after LeBron with Anthony, Bosh, and Wade all being top 5 picks (and all better than Kenyon Martin). 

Because of the shear difference in draft quality I don't think they should restrict teams from drafting high in multiple drafts.  Just too much variance and that will put an even greater focus on tanking in the presumed right seasons i.e. a draft like 2003.

It would be interesting to introduce the consecutive lottery limits while adding the option for teams that won the lottery to refuse their spot (i.e. if you win the lottery in a weak draft, you have the option to keep your previous spot, but remain eligible for next year's lottery). That would prevent some instances of a bad team losing out on a strong draft just because they won in a weak draft, but also would really encourage that team to tank the next year to make it worth it.

Ultimately, the answer is probably going back to the previous lottery odds, plus limits on protections (and maybe make some limits around how you finished the year before, like teams that made the playoffs in 2025 couldn't put top 5 protections on their 2026/2027 picks, but could do lottery protection, and could do top 5 protection on later picks). Or the wheel, but that has always felt a bit like a solution in search of a problem.

the weakness or strength of a particular draft class shouldn't matter.  Team that gets the top pick is still in a better position than every other team and there's no telling how that player will turn out. 

one way to address the protections teams put on their picks is to eliminate that as an option for all teams so that picks convey regardless (which will likely put a kibosh on those second rounders protected 1-55 that are included in a number of deals just to send something out in a trade) or make it so that if protections are retained, they cannot continue protected for a number of years to where they hit a point where they don't convey or convert to second rounders.  If a team protects a pick 1-14 for a future year, they cannot put further protections on it for following years.

of course the strength of the draft matters.

The simple reality is most teams in the lottery are simply bad teams.  No amount of changes is going to change that fact. They need more talent and restricting them from getting more talent is going to destroy any semblance of parity because those teams are never going to get better.

[bdm860]

My radical idea is to not let teams control their own pick.

As a C's fan, that '16-'20 window was one of my favorite times as a fan. I got to root for the team to win now while also being excited about the draft. I'm sure fans in OKC, HOU, ATL are feeling this now too, controlling some primo picks from other teams while getting to root for their teams to win now.

And then I look at the Brooklyn Nets during that same time frame, they were able to improve the team (even before big free agent signings in '19) without their draft picks. After bottoming out at 20 wins in '17, they were able to increase to 28 wins in '18 and 42 wins in '19, that's with no lottery picks and no marquee free agent signings, simply from actually trying to do the best with what they had.

So replace the lottery with a "team draft." Worst team in the league gets to pick a team to tie their draft pick to, just make a rule that you can't pick yourself, and you can't later trade for your own pick. If the season ended today, it might look something like:

#1 WAS picks SAC (so Washington's '27 1st round pick is tied to SACs performance in '27).
#2 IND picks WAS
#3 SAC picks NOP
#4 OKC (picking for LAC since they own that pick) picks MIL

I think this would do a lot to eliminate tanking. I'm not going to tank to help another team, and tanking just to bet on another team's performance a year ahead is too much a risk.

Would never happen but I think it would work.

[slamtheking]

Drafts are not equal so I'm not a fan of any proposal which eliminates a team from winning multiple years.  And you often need multiple high level picks to truly complete.  Now I can see the merit of eliminating some protection tiers, but otherwise this is mostly just the haves trying to keep the have nots from becoming the haves. 

Also, 10 years ago or so I actually analyzed the top pick in the lottery era to illustrate the shear difference in draft quality. I looked at the #1 pick only and broke then down by near consensus #1 to more open and then rated the picks on how good they were. It might be worth doing again, but a good illustration is the 2000 draft.  Kenyon Martin was a near consensus #1 pick that year. He also ended up being the best player in that draft.  So a homerun for the Nets i e  their choice was basically made and it hit, yet Kenyon Martin wasn't a franchise player and was never going to be the best player on a title team.  Now imagine the Nets are restricted from high picks for several years because they got Martin.  Or worse, you get the 1st pick in 2001 where there isn't  a consensus #1 and Kwame Brown is the 1st pick and the best player is a guy from Spain that went 3rd (Pau) and the 2nd best player is a Frenchman that went 28th (Parker).  Not all drafts are 2003 with Lebron or even 2004 with Dwight i.e. where there is a consensus #1 that ends up as the best player in the draft and is a franchise player.  Or like 2003 after LeBron with Anthony, Bosh, and Wade all being top 5 picks (and all better than Kenyon Martin). 

Because of the shear difference in draft quality I don't think they should restrict teams from drafting high in multiple drafts.  Just too much variance and that will put an even greater focus on tanking in the presumed right seasons i.e. a draft like 2003.

It would be interesting to introduce the consecutive lottery limits while adding the option for teams that won the lottery to refuse their spot (i.e. if you win the lottery in a weak draft, you have the option to keep your previous spot, but remain eligible for next year's lottery). That would prevent some instances of a bad team losing out on a strong draft just because they won in a weak draft, but also would really encourage that team to tank the next year to make it worth it.

Ultimately, the answer is probably going back to the previous lottery odds, plus limits on protections (and maybe make some limits around how you finished the year before, like teams that made the playoffs in 2025 couldn't put top 5 protections on their 2026/2027 picks, but could do lottery protection, and could do top 5 protection on later picks). Or the wheel, but that has always felt a bit like a solution in search of a problem.

the weakness or strength of a particular draft class shouldn't matter.  Team that gets the top pick is still in a better position than every other team and there's no telling how that player will turn out. 

one way to address the protections teams put on their picks is to eliminate that as an option for all teams so that picks convey regardless (which will likely put a kibosh on those second rounders protected 1-55 that are included in a number of deals just to send something out in a trade) or make it so that if protections are retained, they cannot continue protected for a number of years to where they hit a point where they don't convey or convert to second rounders.  If a team protects a pick 1-14 for a future year, they cannot put further protections on it for following years.

of course the strength of the draft matters.

The simple reality is most teams in the lottery are simply bad teams.  No amount of changes is going to change that fact. They need more talent and restricting them from getting more talent is going to destroy any semblance of parity because those teams are never going to get better.

and who's to say whether a particular draft is good or bad?  there's always sure-fire players that end up busts and players that teams take a flyer on that turn out to be great. 

teams should get periodic cracks at the top pick, not a constant, yearly attempt to cash-in.  Philly's unashamed 'process' is a prime example of a team being a league disgrace for years trying to cash in and it still not paying off because the players they pick all had/have flaws even though a number of them were considered great, if not generational, talents.

[Moranis]

Drafts are not equal so I'm not a fan of any proposal which eliminates a team from winning multiple years.  And you often need multiple high level picks to truly complete.  Now I can see the merit of eliminating some protection tiers, but otherwise this is mostly just the haves trying to keep the have nots from becoming the haves. 

Also, 10 years ago or so I actually analyzed the top pick in the lottery era to illustrate the shear difference in draft quality. I looked at the #1 pick only and broke then down by near consensus #1 to more open and then rated the picks on how good they were. It might be worth doing again, but a good illustration is the 2000 draft.  Kenyon Martin was a near consensus #1 pick that year. He also ended up being the best player in that draft.  So a homerun for the Nets i e  their choice was basically made and it hit, yet Kenyon Martin wasn't a franchise player and was never going to be the best player on a title team.  Now imagine the Nets are restricted from high picks for several years because they got Martin.  Or worse, you get the 1st pick in 2001 where there isn't  a consensus #1 and Kwame Brown is the 1st pick and the best player is a guy from Spain that went 3rd (Pau) and the 2nd best player is a Frenchman that went 28th (Parker).  Not all drafts are 2003 with Lebron or even 2004 with Dwight i.e. where there is a consensus #1 that ends up as the best player in the draft and is a franchise player.  Or like 2003 after LeBron with Anthony, Bosh, and Wade all being top 5 picks (and all better than Kenyon Martin). 

Because of the shear difference in draft quality I don't think they should restrict teams from drafting high in multiple drafts.  Just too much variance and that will put an even greater focus on tanking in the presumed right seasons i.e. a draft like 2003.

It would be interesting to introduce the consecutive lottery limits while adding the option for teams that won the lottery to refuse their spot (i.e. if you win the lottery in a weak draft, you have the option to keep your previous spot, but remain eligible for next year's lottery). That would prevent some instances of a bad team losing out on a strong draft just because they won in a weak draft, but also would really encourage that team to tank the next year to make it worth it.

Ultimately, the answer is probably going back to the previous lottery odds, plus limits on protections (and maybe make some limits around how you finished the year before, like teams that made the playoffs in 2025 couldn't put top 5 protections on their 2026/2027 picks, but could do lottery protection, and could do top 5 protection on later picks). Or the wheel, but that has always felt a bit like a solution in search of a problem.

the weakness or strength of a particular draft class shouldn't matter.  Team that gets the top pick is still in a better position than every other team and there's no telling how that player will turn out. 

one way to address the protections teams put on their picks is to eliminate that as an option for all teams so that picks convey regardless (which will likely put a kibosh on those second rounders protected 1-55 that are included in a number of deals just to send something out in a trade) or make it so that if protections are retained, they cannot continue protected for a number of years to where they hit a point where they don't convey or convert to second rounders.  If a team protects a pick 1-14 for a future year, they cannot put further protections on it for following years.

of course the strength of the draft matters.

The simple reality is most teams in the lottery are simply bad teams.  No amount of changes is going to change that fact. They need more talent and restricting them from getting more talent is going to destroy any semblance of parity because those teams are never going to get better.

and who's to say whether a particular draft is good or bad?  there's always sure-fire players that end up busts and players that teams take a flyer on that turn out to be great. 

teams should get periodic cracks at the top pick, not a constant, yearly attempt to cash-in.  Philly's unashamed 'process' is a prime example of a team being a league disgrace for years trying to cash in and it still not paying off because the players they pick all had/have flaws even though a number of them were considered great, if not generational, talents.

No one says anything about the draft quality but putting your head in the sand and pretending all drafts are the same doesn't make sense either.  Year to year the players at the top are of significantly different quality.  Any system that doesn't account for that is inherently flawed.

I've heard the Sixers stuff before it is mostly garbage.  The Thunder have tanked worse than the Sixers twice in the last 20 seasons and no one seems to care about that.  But the Sixers are also a good example that not all drafts are created equal.  All those high picks and they ended up no further than the 2nd round (they also only had the 1st pick once and then traded up for a second one). Though that was mostly from terrible moves after the tank job as much as anything.